If you please glance at the Clustrmaps widget on the right: you’ll soon see that it’s its first anniversary. Of course it doesn’t coincide with the date when I created the blog; I wish it did!
Thank to all those who, after stumbling upon my ‘creation’, chose to visit more than once.
So, back to the starting point – in the absence of a decision, still posting until numerology gives me a clue.
Needless to say, words are more often than not misleading. Suppose you want to express what the intended result of your actions is: as soon as you try, you will see that cause (why) and purpose (what for) are very close to one another in the expression of their possible initial questions, yet not so in the linguistic structures you must use when answering:
Why did you do that? ~ Because I thought I would help.
What did you do that for? ~For you to stop worrying.
You'll find exercises for the three cases here http://db.tt/6bM7QReL
-->Case One. If the subject in the newly created clause of purpose is the same as the one in the main clause, AND the latter is in the affirmative, then the connectors to be used are:
to + Infinitive so as to + Infinitive in order to + Infinitive
Dylan lit a cigarette to smoke it.
The Smiths are saving money so as to buy a new house.
Eugene is learning languages in order to travel around the world.
If the subject is the same in the main clause and in the newly created clause of purpose BUT the latter is in the negative, you can only use the following:
so as not to + Infinitive in order not to + Infinitive
You must have already observed that you can’t use the negative Infinitive ‘not to do’, simply because it is specialized in expressing prohibition, and it works wonderfully in Indirect Speech – but not here!
Donald put his wallet into his inner pocket so as not to lose it.
Laura drove her car slowly in order not to have an accident.
-->Case Two. The subject of the subordinate clause is different from the subject of the main clause. This means that someone does (or did) something with the purpose of obtaining something (else) from a different person (or entity).
Here, consider two possibilities.
(a) With a subordinate clause of purpose expressing a present or future intentionality, the verb in the main clause is expressed in a present or future tense, or an Imperative. The connectors to be used are so that or in order that and the verb form can be will/can/may + [not] Infinitive, depending on what you mean to say.
Bring the dead tiger here so that/in order that everybody will/can/may see it.
Mrs. Fleming has bought the newspaper so that/in order that her husband will/can/may read it.
I'll draw a map so that/in order that you can't/won't/may not get lost.
(b) With a subordinate clause of purpose which refers to the past, the verb in the main clause is expressed in a past tense. The connectors to be used are so that or in order that and the verb form can be would/could/might + [not] Infinitive, depending on what you mean to say.
I left the room so that/in order that they could/might speak freely.
I switched on the radio so that/in order that we would/could/might listen to the news.
The murderer disguised himself as a priest so that/in order that the police wouldn't/couldn't/might not recognize him.
-->So that can also be used when both the main clause and the subordinate clause have the same subject, yet in these cases so as to, in order to and to-Infinitive are by far more frequent.
The expression of a subject and a direct object by animate entities (i.e., persons) in the main clause leads to misunderstanding: we don’t know whether the purpose refers to the subject or to the direct object.
Lily sent her grandson to the garden to rest a little.
Which of the two are supposed to rest – Lily, or else her grandson?
(a) By using so that, the subject of both clauses is the same:
Lily sent her grandson to the garden so that she could rest.
(b) By using for + Accusative + to + Infinitive, the direct object in the main clause is the subject of the subordinate clause:
Lily sent her grandson to the garden for him to rest.